Annals I.8

On the first day of the Senate he allowed nothing to be discussed but the funeral of Augustus, whose will, which was brought in by the Vestal Virgins, named as his heirs Tiberius and Livia. The latter was to be admitted into the Julian family with the name of Augusta; next in expectation were the grand and great-grandchildren. In the third place, he had named the chief men of the State, most of whom he hated, simply out of ostentation and to win credit with posterity. His legacies were not beyond the scale of a private citizen, except a bequest of forty-three million five hundred thousand sesterces "to the people and populace of Rome," of one thousand to every praetorian soldier, and of three hundred to every man in the legionary cohorts composed of Roman citizens. Next followed a deliberation about funeral honors. Of these the most imposing were thought fitting. The procession was to be conducted through "the gate of triumph," on the motion of Gallus Asinius; the titles of the laws passed, the names of the nations conquered by Augustus were to be borne in front, on that of Lucius Arruntius. Messala Valerius further proposed that the oath of allegiance to Tiberius should be yearly renewed, and when Tiberius asked him whether it was at his bidding that he had brought forward this motion, he replied that he had proposed it spontaneously, and that in whatever concerned the State he would use only his own discretion, even at the risk of offending. This was the only style of adulation which yet remained. The Senators unanimously exclaimed that the body ought to be borne on their shoulders to the funeral pile. The emperor left the point to them with disdainful moderation, he then admonished the people by a proclamation not to indulge in that tumultuous enthusiasm which had distracted the funeral of the Divine Julius, or express a wish that Augustus should be burnt in the Forum instead of in his appointed resting-place in the Campus Martius. On the day of the funeral soldiers stood round as a guard, amid much ridicule from those who had either themselves witnessed or who had heard from their parents of the famous day when slavery was still something fresh, and freedom had been resought in vain, when the slaying of Caesar, the Dictator, seemed to some the vilest, to others, the most glorious of deeds. "Now," they said, "an aged sovereign, whose power had lasted long, who had provided his heirs with abundant means to coerce the State, requires forsooth the defense of soldiers that his burial may be undisturbed."

Tiberius has a funeral for Augustus and is sworn in among much sucking up. Oddly Tacitus points out the very weakness of his argument that I’ve been complaining about since the beginning. If Augustus’ rule was so unopposed and Tiberius’ rise was met with no descent, then why the soldiers? Clearly, there was opposition, both public and private against the princeps. Anyway, Tacitus’ going on and on about the Republic is starting to get tiresome.

On a different note, let’s take a look at Augustus’ will. Tiberius and Livia are his primary heirs. Tiberius received 2/3 of the estate and Livia received 1/3 (Suetonius, Augustus 101). He then mentions the second and third degree individuals. The second degree people are the ones who get the money should the first degree people die. In this case, it’s the grand and great grand children. Specifically, Suetonius lists them as Drusus (already dead), Germanicus and Germanicus’ three sons, Drusus Caesar, Nero Caesar and Caligula. The third degree are if the second degree people die, and in this case his friends and enemies.

The second and third degrees are not really for use. They are primarily used as shout outs, thus the mention of dead Drusus. Nonetheless, again we see the progression of heirs. Tiberius is first, Germanicus is second and, after that, Germanicus’ family. Germanicus, Germanicus, Germanicus. People love this guy.

Agrippa’s side of the family is missing. Nothing to Julia to the Elder, nothing to Julia the Younger, nothing to Postumus. In fact, the will instructs people not to put the two Julias in his mausoleum. That’s what you get for trying to overthrow Augustus, I guess. Postumus gets no mention at all, which has caused modern historians more grief. In ancient times, a will is voided if all the heirs are not mentioned. Since, Postumus’ adoption was reversed, the will is supposedly in tact, but some think this is again proof that Augustus ordered Postumus’ execution, which I don’t buy.

Annals I.7

Meanwhile at Rome people plunged into slavery - consuls, senators, knights. The higher a man's rank, the more eager his hypocrisy, and his looks the more carefully studied, so as neither to betray joy at the decease of one emperor nor sorrow at the rise of another, while he mingled delight and lamentations with his flattery. Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Apuleius, the consuls, were the first to swear allegiance to Tiberius Caesar, and in their presence the oath was taken by Seius Strabo and Caius Turranius, respectively the commander of the praetorian cohorts and the superintendent of the corn supplies. Then the Senate, the soldiers and the people did the same. For Tiberius would inaugurate everything with the consuls, as though the ancient constitution remained, and he hesitated about being emperor. Even the proclamation by which he summoned the senators to their chamber, he issued merely with the title of Tribune, which he had received under Augustus. The wording of the proclamation was brief, and in a very modest tone. "He would," it said, "provide for the honours due to his father, and not leave the lifeless body, and this was the only public duty he now claimed." As soon, however, as Augustus was dead, he had given the watchword to the praetorian cohorts, as commander-in-chief. He had the guard under arms, with all the other adjuncts of a court; soldiers attended him to the forum; soldiers went with him to the Senate House. He sent letters to the different armies, as though supreme power was now his, and showed hesitation only when he spoke in the Senate. His chief motive was fear that Germanicus, who had at his disposal so many legions, such vast auxiliary forces of the allies, and such wonderful popularity, might prefer the possession to the expectation of empire. He looked also at public opinion, wishing to have the credit of having been called and elected by the State rather than of having crept into power through the intrigues of a wife and a dotard's adoption. It was subsequently understood that he assumed a wavering attitude, to test likewise the temper of the nobles. For he would twist a word or a look into a crime and treasure it up in his memory.

Everyone declares allegiance to Tiberius. Notice the order that they declare allegiance. Consuls are first, followed by the Praetorian prefect (head of the imperial guard/secret police), then the superintendent of grain, then the senate, the soldiers and the people. Note how far down the list the senate is and how high up the list the Praetorian prefect is. No matter who the Emperor is, the Praetorian prefect is important. The prefect at this time is Strabo, who is the father of Sejanus, a man we will become very familiar with.

So the Romans used consuls to name the years. With a mention of the consuls, we know the exact year of Augustus’ death and Tiberius’ rise- AD 14. This is nice of Tacitus as few ancient historians do this.

Tiberius starts out claiming modesty and respect for the ancient constitution. Ancient? It wasn’t that long ago that the Republic was alive and well. I’m sure the whole constitution wasn’t abandoned that quickly. Tacitus may be over-stating the power of the Emperor just a tad. There was still law, trials and processes. Just last passage, Tacitus mentioned that Augustus used Senate approval to banish Postumus. Though Tacitus likes to claim that the Emperors had total power, there were some checks. There was the prefect, the senate, rival families and the generals. Tiberius had been secretive about Postumus and there must have been some reason for that.

In fact, the generals, namely Germanicus, do bring some modesty to Tiberius. Tacitus claims that Tiberius fears Germanicus, his adopted son. Germanicus is the last competitor of Tiberius and the heir to the throne. He is given command of legions and sent off to do battle.

Generals are an interesting subject. Modern historians, namely Edward Gibbon, talk about Pax Romana, a period of supposed relative peace starting with Augustus and lasting two-hundred years. Gibbon claims that the peace was maintained because Emperors recalled their generals after victories and prevented them from gaining too much power. This was a serious problem during the late Republic and led to war under the first and second triumvirates (Julius Caesar and Pompey fought for power and then Augustus and Mark Antony fought for power).

Augustus’ main general, Agrippa, was incredibly popular and powerful after his victories. Augustus first checked him by recalling him and giving a governorship. After this, he gave his daughter to him and made him next in line to the throne. It worked and Agrippa was not a problem. The same thing basically happened to Tiberius. After several victories, he was recalled and given a consulship followed by control over the eastern provinces. Like Agrippa, he was made next in line to the throne.

Though Tacitus would like us to believe that Livia’s manipulation caused Augustus’ adoption of Tiberius, it is pretty clear that Augustus was trying to maintain power. Augustus checked his generals, and, as a result, was able to stay in power until his death. And you know who didn’t have any military power? Postumus. This is the real reason why he wasn’t an option for the throne.

So, should Tiberius fear Germanicus? You betcha! Germanicus is well connected and will clearly gain power by being out on the battlefield. Tiberius has a couple things going for him, though. Germanicus is fairly young at this point (around 29) and has already been promised the throne. After all, Tiberius is around 57 (pretty old in Roman times). Germanicus may believe it is only a matter of time before Tiberius dies and may not bother overthrowing him. Additionally, Germanicus is in a dangerous environment and might die of something like disease or a battle wound.

Annals I.6

The first crime of the new reign was the murder of Postumus Agrippa. Though he was surprised and unarmed, a centurion of the firmest resolution dispatched him with difficulty. Tiberius gave no explanation of the matter to the Senate; he pretended that there were directions from his father ordering the tribune in charge of the prisoner not to delay the slaughter of Agrippa, whenever he should himself have breathed his last. Beyond a doubt, Augustus had often complained of the young man's character, and had thus succeeded in obtaining the sanction of a decree of the Senate for his banishment. But he never was hard-hearted enough to destroy any of his kinsfolk, nor was it credible that death was to be the sentence of the grandson in order that the stepson might feel secure. It was more probable that Tiberius and Livia, the one from fear, the other from a stepmother's enmity, hurried on the destruction of a youth whom they suspected and hated. When the centurion reported, according to military custom, that he had executed the command, Tiberius replied that he had not given the command, and that the act must be justified to the Senate. As soon as Sallustius Crispus who shared the secret (he had, in fact, sent the written order to the tribune) knew this, fearing that the charge would be shifted on himself, and that his peril would be the same whether he uttered fiction or truth, he advised Livia not to divulge the secrets of her house or the counsels of friends, or any services performed by the soldiers, nor to let Tiberius weaken the strength of imperial power by referring everything to the Senate, for "the condition," he said, "of holding empire is that an account cannot be balanced unless it be rendered to one person."

Tiberius becomes Emperor and immediately executes Postumus. Well, actually Postumus is executed, but we don’t know by whom. Here is another point of dispute among historians. With this one, I actually agree with Tacitus’ implication that Tiberius was the instigator. Yet, a number of modern historians, despite Tiberius having a clear motive and ability to remove competition for the throne, think Tiberius is innocent.

The historians note that Tiberius ordered an inquiry into the murder of Postumus. A guilty man, they theorize, would not do such a thing. On top of this, Sallustius Crispus became panicked by the thought of inquiry and told Livia, who told Tiberius, to drop it. The inquiry was dropped, but not for fear of Tiberius being discovered, but for fear that he would look weak by deferring power to the Senate. Modern historians also point out that Tacitus is careful not to explicitly blame Tiberius. He simply claims the new reign kills him.

I would say that Tiberius is the only logical culprit. Augustus, who Tiberius claims made the order, had no reason to wait to kill Postumus. He had chosen exile for Postumus and had stuck to it for five years. I also don’t think Livia or anyone else had the power to order or achieve such a murder. Postumus was under heavy guards and only someone who controlled the guards could get to him.

As for the modern historians’ claims, Tiberius only ordered an inquiry. It never actually went through. It may have easily been a bluff that was never called. As for Tacitus being unsure, it may be that Tacitus wants everyone to look guilty. He’s spreading around blame to make Tiberius, Livia, Crispus and the whole administration look guilty, murderous and secretive.

Annals I.5

While these and like topics were discussed, the infirmities of Augustus increased, and some suspected guilt on his wife's part. For a rumor had gone abroad that a few months before he had sailed to Planasia on a visit to Agrippa, with the knowledge of some chosen friends, and with one companion, Fabius Maximus; that many tears were shed on both sides, with expressions of affection, and that thus there was a hope of the young man being restored to the home of his grandfather. This, it was said, Maximus had divulged to his wife Marcia, she again to Livia. All was known to Caesar, and when Maximus soon afterwards died, by a death some thought to be self-inflicted, there were heard at his funeral wailings from Marcia, in which she reproached herself for having been the cause of her husband's destruction. Whatever the fact was, Tiberius as he was just entering Illyria was summoned home by an urgent letter from his mother, and it has not been thoroughly ascertained whether at the city of Nola he found Augustus still breathing or quite lifeless. For Livia had surrounded the house and its approaches with a strict watch, and favorable bulletins were published from time to time, till, provision having been made for the demands of the crisis, one and the same report told men that Augustus was dead and that Tiberius Nero was master of the State.

Tacitus claims that Augustus, in his old age, was thinking about changing his mind and giving the Empire to Postumus instead of Tiberius. Augustus travels to visit Postumus, then his traveling companion Fabius tells his wife about the visit and the wife passes the info on to Livia. Fabius feels bad and kills himself. Tiberius then gets recalled to Rome because Augustus is dying, perhaps by poison.

Tacitus implies Livia poisoned Augustus (that’s unsubstantiated murder claim #3). The story is absolutely identical to the Claudius-Agrippina story. In both stories, an old and senile Emperor is first manipulated by his bitchy wife to adopt her son instead of his own blood. Then, when the Emperor has a change of heart, he gets poisoned. Lazy work, Tacitus, lazy work.

Much about this tale doesn’t make sense. Augustus, an old man in his seventies, decides to travel to visit Postumus, secretly. Postumus was a man, at best, who was uncouth and unfit to be Emperor and, at worst, conspired to overthrow Augustus. Whatever the reason that Augustus chose Tiberius over Postumus, the circumstances weren’t likely to change by 14 AD. Somehow Postumus became competent? Somehow Augustus started not trusting his wife? Suddenly the people supporting Tiberius didn’t need to be appeased? Maybe Augustus actually did visit Postumus, but it is doubtful he did it to actually change his mind about the Empire. In fact, Suetonius claims that Augustus traveled with Tiberius around the Empire close to Augustus’ death showing support for his new man (Suetonius, Augustus 97).

The secretive aspect of the trip is ridiculous. Augustus would need days, if not weeks, to visit Postumus. Plans would involve dozens of people and certainly Livia would notice her husband being gone. Keeping a visit like this secret is just not likely. Fabius killed himself for blowing the secret, implying that, other than him, it was a totally successful secret. Right.

It is pretty clear that, being a woman-hater, Tacitus needed to give Livia a motive for murder. Augustus’ sudden and unlikely 180 on Postumus was it.

Annals I.4

Thus the State had been revolutionized, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stripped of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign without the least apprehension for the present, while Augustus in the vigor of life, could maintain his own position, that of his house, and the general tranquility. When in advanced old age, he was worn out by a sickly frame, and the end was near and new prospects opened, a few spoke in vain of the blessings of freedom, but most people dreaded and some longed for war. The popular gossip of the large majority fastened itself variously on their future masters. "Agrippa was savage, and had been exasperated by insult, and neither from age nor experience in affairs was equal to so great a burden. Tiberius Nero was of mature years, and had established his fame in war, but he had the old arrogance inbred in the Claudian family, and many symptoms of a cruel temper, though they were repressed, now and then broke out. He had also from earliest infancy been reared in an imperial house; consulships and triumphs had been heaped on him in his younger days; even in the years which, on the pretext of seclusion he spent in exile at Rhodes, he had had no thoughts but of wrath, hypocrisy, and secret sensuality. There was his mother too with a woman caprice. They must, it seemed, be subject to a female and to two striplings besides, who for a while would burden, and some day rend asunder the State."

Tacitus, once again, laments the fall of the Republic, claiming it was moral. And, again, he tries to claim that Augustus maintained peace in his house, which we know to be very false. As I mentioned before, he was faced with no fewer than eight conspiracies against him.

Now Tacitus, using the incredibly reliable source of popular gossip, starts talking about two candidates for Emperor, Tiberius and Agrippa Postumus. I thought this was a settled issue. Agrippa Postumus was exiled in I.3 for, according to Tacitus, no reason other than the fact that he was unpleasant and Livia (Augustus’ wife and Tiberius’ mom) didn’t like him.

So, the people claimed Agrippa wasn’t fit because he was uncouth. Tiberius, on the other hand, was arrogant, had a bad temper, was hypocritical (whatever that means as an insult), sexually depraved and had a mom who was a bitch. Despite Livia being in her seventies, Tacitus claims that people feared she would destroy the State.

Let’s talk about Agrippa Postumus for a second. He is Augustus’ grandson and really had every reason to assume he was going to be Emperor. First, his dad was set up to be Emperor, then his eldest brother, then his next eldest brother. But, alas, they all died. Instead, Augustus adopted Tiberius to succeed him when Agrippa Postumus was around 15 years old. He then exiles him for years. The reasoning given? Agrippa Postumus was savage and Livia was manipulative. Call me suspicious, but Postumus must have done something worse. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Say your dad is the great Agrippa and someone promised your brothers the Empire, but when it came time to give it to you, they shafted you. On top of that, imagine the feeling for a 15-year-old and a “savage” 15-year-old at that. Tacitus tells us that Postumus was exiled around AD 7, but what Tacitus doesn’t tell us is that Julia, his sister, was also exiled in AD 8, supposedly for adultery, but the senator who she supposedly spent time with received nothing. Oh yeah, and around the same time (the year is unknown, but between AD 1 and 14), a fellow named Lucius Aemelius Paulus was killed for trying to overthrow Augustus (Suetonius, Augustus 19). Lucius Aemelius Paulus’ wife happened to be Julia. Years later, another rebellion occurred that tried to rescue Julia and Postumus from their exiles (Suetonius, Augustus 19). Also, Postumus was moved to a more secure island with tight security (Suetonius, Augustus 65).

That’s a lot of political action surrounding Postumus. In all, that’s a harsh sentence, a sister, a brother in law, a rescue mission and tight security all pointing to more a significant Postumus. My guess is Postumus got angry about not getting chosen to become Emperor and all the anti-Tiberius elements rallied around him.

Annals I.3

Augustus meanwhile, as supports to his despotism, raised to the pontificate and curule aedileship Claudius Marcellus, his sister's son, while a mere stripling, and Marcus Agrippa, of humble birth, a good soldier, and one who had shared his victory, to two consecutive consulships, and as Marcellus soon afterwards died, he also accepted him as his son-in-law. Tiberius Nero and Claudius Drusus, his stepsons, he honoured with imperial tides, although his own family was as yet undiminished. For he had admitted the children of Agrippa, Caius and Lucius, into the house of the Caesars; and before they had yet laid aside the dress of boyhood he had most fervently desired, with an outward show of reluctance, that they should be entitled "princes of the youth," and be consuls-elect. When Agrippa died, and Lucius Caesar as he was on his way to our armies in Spain, and Caius while returning from Armenia, still suffering from a wound, were prematurely cut off by destiny, or by their step-mother Livia's treachery, Drusus too having long been dead, Nero remained alone of the stepsons, and in him everything tended to centre. He was adopted as a son, as a colleague in empire and a partner in the tribunitian power, and paraded through all the armies, no longer through his mother's secret intrigues, but at her open suggestion. For she had gained such a hold on the aged Augustus that he drove out as an exile into the island of Planasia, his only grandson, Agrippa Postumus, who, though devoid of worthy qualities, and having only the brute courage of physical strength, had not been convicted of any gross offence. And yet Augustus had appointed Germanicus, Drusus's offspring, to the command of eight legions on the Rhine, and required Tiberius to adopt him, although Tiberius had a son, now a young man, in his house; but he did it that he might have several safeguards to rest on. He had no war at the time on his hands except against the Germans, which was rather to wipe out the disgrace of the loss of Quintilius Varus and his army than out of an ambition to extend the empire, or for any adequate recompense. At home all was tranquil, and there were magistrates with the same titles; there was a younger generation, sprung up since the victory of Actium, and even many of the older men had been born during the civil wars. How few were left who had seen the republic!

Tacitus mentions that Augustus, to help with despotic reign, starts giving away posts to people right and left. Tacitus is doing three things at once with this passage. First, he is mildly trying to show Augustus’ tyranny, as many of these positions used to be elected and Augustus’ choices are unqualified. Second, Tacitus is showing that Augustus is promising a lot of things to a lot people to stay in power (which contradicts his last passage about Augustus being unopposed). Third, Tacitus is showing that Augustus is actually searching for an heir. Tacitus begins the passage cleverly with the phrase “as supports to his despotism.” True, these jobs all support the Emperor. True, by giving away positions, he keeps friends and is able to rule longer. But, the greatest support of all for the office of the princep is to find an heir.

The family tree gets confusing, but it’s important. Augustus has no male children and no obvious heir, which works well for Augustus because he gets to tell everyone they’re his number one. He gives his nephew, Marcellus, a management position over public works despite being young. He gives Agrippa, his son in law, consulships despite not being of the right class and adopts Agrippa’s kids Caius and Lucius. He also adopts and honors his step-kids, Tiberius and Drusus. That’s six people that think they are going to be princep. Of course, Tacitus' narative makes it seems like this is happening all at once when, in fact, it over many years.

Marcellus, Agrippa, Drusus, Caius, Lucius and Drusus all die, leaving Tiberius alone as the heir…maybe. The death years of each were 23 BC, 12 BC, 9 BC, AD 2, AD 4. Livia, Augustus’ wife and mother of Tiberius, is accused of somehow killing Caius and Lucius. We’ll call these unsubstantiated murder accusations #1 and #2. Livia, in order to get Tiberius to the throne, was killing off the competition. Tacitus seems to hate women.

With the big five competitors gone, Tiberius is left with only two more competitors- Agrippa’s last son, Agrippa Postumus (who is also Augustus’ grandson) and Drusus’ kid, Germanicus. Livia convinces Augustus to banish Agrippa Postumus in AD 6 or 7 and Tiberius adopts Germanicus. Problems solved, so it seems. A nice line of succession is established: Augustus, Tiberius, Germanicus.

Everything is dandy in Rome except with Germany, where Quintilius Varus had a big defeat. Few remember the Republic. Again is the contradiction. Empire is inferior, yet stable. Republic is superior, yet unstable. It should be noted that when Tacitus was writing, it Rome was still called a Republic. Only in retrospect do people end the Republic with Augustus. Perhaps Tacitus was the influence.

So, things look good for Augustus and Tiberius at the moment. Only three hanging threads remain. Agrippa Postumus is still hanging around in exile. Tiberius has a son already, also named Drusus, which I’m sure will become a problem. Additionally, Germanicus is going to be sent to Germany to command forces in Rome’s only problem area. Tacitus is setting something up.

Annals I.2

When after the destruction of Brutus and Cassius there was no longer any army of the Commonwealth, when Pompeius was crushed in Sicily, and when, with Lepidus pushed aside and Antonius slain, even the Julian faction had only Caesar left to lead it, then, dropping the title of triumvir, and giving out that he was a Consul, and was satisfied with a tribune's authority for the protection of the people, Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion, so that, aggrandized by revolution, they preferred the safety of the present to the dangerous past. Nor did the provinces dislike that condition of affairs, for they distrusted the government of the Senate and the people, because of the rivalries between the leading men and the rapacity of the officials, while the protection of the laws was unavailing, as they were continually deranged by violence, intrigue, and finally by corruption.

After giving a complete history of liberty versus tyranny and the fall of the Republic in I.1, Tacitus now focuses on the princeps, starting with Augustus. Augustus and his triumvirate with Lepidus and Mark Antony defeated Brutus and Cassius (who fled after killing Julius Caesar and usurped the eastern provinces). They then defeated Sextus Pompeius (Pompey’s son) at Sicily. Augustus then turned on the rest of the triumvirate. He politically pushed aside Lepidus and defeated Mark Antony.

After battle came the bribes. He bribed the military with money, the people with food and everyone with good speeches. Somehow, I think the first one is the important one. Tacitus claims that Augustus was wholly unopposed. This is a bit of an overstatement. Augustus was met with no fewer than eight conspiracies against him during his rule (Cassius Dio, Roman History LIII.15, LIII.23, LIV.3, LIV.15, LV.14, LV.4, LV.10, LV.27)

Tacitus again spares trashing Augustus. He admits that he is tyrant and that history on him is flawed. He claims that his power was held by bribes and corruption. Yet, Tacitus then shies away from really digging into Augustus and claims that his rule was preferred for the sake of peace. What a load! By this logic, Tacitus should praise Nero as well for his peacemaking with Parthia and because, as a result of his death, civil war broke out.

Tacitus knew these conspiracies existed and that Augustus’ history was probably “falsified through terror” as well. He undermines his own thesis of “tyranny: bad; liberty: good” by amending it this way. Why not throw him under the bus with Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero? Why not complete the set? I guess that even a century after his death, it was in bad taste to insult Divine Augustus. Maybe insulting Augustus and really claiming that all princeps were bad would be too much for Trajan.

Annals I.1

Rome at the beginning was ruled by kings. Freedom and the consulship were established by Lucius Brutus. Dictatorships were held for a temporary crisis. The power of the decemvirs did not last beyond two years, nor was the consular jurisdiction of the military tribunes of long duration. The despotisms of Cinna and Sulla were brief; the rule of Pompeius and of Crassus soon yielded before Caesar; the arms of Lepidus and Antonius before Augustus; who, when the world was wearied by civil strife, subjected it to empire under the title of "Prince." But the successes and reverses of the old Roman people have been recorded by famous historians; and fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few facts about Augustus - more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed.

Ah, here we are at the beginning of the Annals (written by Tacitus in around 115 AD). This should be fun. I hope you’ll read through Tacitus with me and give me your thoughts on each passage. If you don’t know anything about Roman history, don’t worry, I’ll try to make it easy on you. If you do, we’ll still all certainly learn some new stuff. The Annals covers the history of Rome from Tiberius through Nero (AD 14 – AD 68), though some of it is lost.

Tacitus begins with a prologue. He starts us out with kings. There were seven of them until Lucius Brutus overthrew the last one and established the Republic (side note: it was Marcus Brutus who later overthrew Julius Caesar). Starting with kings is an interesting and seemingly logical choice at first glance. Livy, though, in his Founding of the City, starts his Roman history out with Aeneas and Troy. Tacitus has purposely removed a connection to divinity. From Venus, came Aeneas and from Aeneas’ line came the Caesars. With the death of Nero and the Julio-Claudians (the Caesars), the emperors’ “divinity” ended. Tacitus claimed that the death of Nero “divulged that secret of the empire, that emperors could be made elsewhere than at Rome.” (Tacitus, Hist. I.4) With Emperor Trajan in power during the time of writing, the last thing Tacitus would want is to bring up anything that would legitimize the Julio-Claudians.

So, Tacitus says there were kings (753 BC – 510 BC), and then there was a Republic with consuls rulings (510 BC – 27 BC). Tacitus calls this change a success. Then he brings up brief interruptions. He mentions the dictators (there were about two dozen of them over the five centuries of the Republic, normally ruling six months, except Sulla and Julius Caesar). He mentions the decemvirs (a council of ten oligarchs who ruled from 451 to 449 BC) and the Consular Tribunes (who ruled sometimes instead of consuls between 444 BC and 367 BC). Tacitus mentions Sulla (who stopped Cinna from taking control of the Republic and ruled for two years) and Julius Caesar (who Pompey and Crassus failed to stop). He then finishes off his list of temporary tyranny with the trimumvirate of Lepidus, Mark Antony and Augustus. Then come the Emperors (then called “princeps”, meaning “first citizen”).

Tacitus is clearly saying that there were kings and then, again, there were kings. He even goes as far to say that the Emperors are a reversal of success. Tyrants and not consuls are the subjects of his writings.

Tacitus also seems to be saying that there was and should be a precedent of republican liberty. Yet, he gives a pretty exhausting list of exceptions and it is clear that the 500 years of the Roman Republic had plenty of time without the rule of consuls. To be fair, though, this time was never more than 24 years and Tacitus was writing in a time when the Emperors had ruled for close to 150 years. Still, with only 1 year of civil war (AD 69) in 150 years of imperial rule, the fragility of the Republic must be apparent to Tacitus. It is all very cynical. Liberty is unstable, while tyranny is enduring.

So, let’s now get to the meat- the princeps. Tacitus claims that the history of Augustus is flawed due to sycophancy, yet he doesn’t write on it either, other than a “few facts”. Kind of hypocritical, but whatever. Okay, let’s move on to Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero, then. Their histories are said to be too positive from historians who wrote under them and too negative from historians who wrote after them. Well, not one of the positive histories survived, but at least we know they existed. As for the negative histories, they didn’t survive either, but Suetonius’ Lives of Caesars and few other sources give us a pretty clear idea what crazy slander was in them. Tacitus recognizes that Flavian (the princeps from AD 69 – AD 96) influence darkened the lives of the Julio-Claudians and now he wants to correct it. How noble. He also claims that he is impartial. Right. We’ll see.